Icing on the Yellow Cake: The Future of Small Modular Reactors in Kentucky

Icing on the Yellow Cake: The Future of Small Modular Reactors in Kentucky

Download a PDF Version

Ben Schaeffer*

Introduction

On March 28, 1979, the most significant accident in the history of the operation of commercial nuclear power plants in the United States occurred.[1] Through an unfortunate combination of equipment malfunction, human error, and defects in the design of the reactor, the Three Mile Island Unit Reactor 2 near Middletown, Pennsylvania partially melted down.[2] Fortunately, the accident caused no injuries or long term health consequences.[3]  However, the more latent and longstanding impact of the meltdown, perhaps, was its effect on the public perception of nuclear energy. In fact, the number of active reactors continues to steadily fall from its peak at 111 in 1990.[4] In addition to public perception influenced by the above-mentioned accident, commentators also cite construction costs, storage issues, and regulatory hurdles as potential barriers for constructing nuclear power plants.[5]

There is, however, a point at which public skepticism of nuclear power clashes with the collective acknowledgment of the necessity for a source of energy that is both environmentally friendly and cost efficient. In a 2008 study conducted by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s Joint Global Change Research Institute, scientists projected the “required growth” of nuclear power in order to alleviate the potentially detrimental environmental impact of concentrated carbon in the atmosphere.[6] Still, despite the numerous advantages that nuclear energy provides, including its reliability, competitive electricity generating costs, and low environmental impact, the future of conventional nuclear power plants in the United States remains dubious.[7]

Against this contentious backdrop, the case for small modular reactors (SMRs) becomes compelling. Unlike conventional nuclear power plants which produce one to three gigawatts (GW) of electricity, SMRs might produce as little as fifty megawatts (MW) of electricity.[8] Today, the International Atomic Energy Agency defines “small” as an energy output below 300 MW of electricity.[9] Given its smaller composition, the development and construction of SMRs could address some of the regulatory and logistical hurdles posed by larger reactors—each individual reactor is a “unit” which enables the unit to be readily transportable and the “modular” nature of the reactors refers to its ability to be assembled in a uniform manner and implemented on-site in isolated locations.[10]

Coal country is primed for the development of SMRs.[11] Despite a post–WWII boom in coal mining, production continues to steadily decline, especially in the eastern United States.[12] For example, in Kentucky, coal production reached its zenith in 1990 when 173.3 million tons of coal were mined; in the ensuing two decades, the output declined by 75%.[13] A 2022 Department of Energy report emphasized how policy goals such as the “Good Neighbor Initiative” and deregulation in the electricity market will continue to lead to the closure of coal powered plants, in turn augmenting the strain on states whose economies have historically relied on cheap energy through coal production.[14]

Therefore, for states that formerly relied on coal production, SMRs could fill a void left by the waning reliance on its output. Virginia is one such state that recently passed legislation to promote the development of SMRs.[15] For Kentucky, the collapse of the coal industry continues to lead to the “shedding” of thousands of jobs.[16] According to a report conducted by the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, coal has historically provided the Commonwealth with “low-cost electricity and energy security.”[17] In light of the decrease in coal production, Kentucky’s “electricity-intensive manufacturing” continues to be threatened.[18] In turn, Kentucky’s promulgation of a regulatory and statutory scheme for small modular nuclear reactors similar to Virginia’s will catalyze Kentucky’s already burgeoning economy because of the environmental benefits and the potential role small modular reactors could play in maximizing the efficiency and scale of manufacturing in the state.

I. Overview of Kentucky’s Manufacturing and Energy Output

Kentucky has what the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a principal agency of the U.S. Federal Statistical System, refers to as an “energy intensive economy.”[19] The Commonwealth’s industrial sector accounts for approximately thirty-five percent of its total energy consumption.[20] Given its energy-intensive status, Kentucky enjoyed the thirteenth lowest average electricity price of any state in 2023.[21] In fact, according to the Kentucky Cabinet for Economic Development in the past five years alone, manufacturers announced plans for approximately 800 facility locations and expansion projects with reported capital investments in excess of $28 billion with close to 40,000 jobs to be added to Kentucky’s economy.[22]

Despite an overall decrease in coal output, coal production still dominates the Commonwealth’s energy portfolio.[23] Kentucky currently ranks fifth in the country in terms of recoverable coal and sixth in present coal production.[24] That said, as coal-fired units continue to become more expensive to operate and maintain, 5,600 MW of energy generated by coal has shut down since 2013.[25] In turn, natural gas continues to fill that void with twenty-three percent of the Commonwealth’s electricity output being generated by natural gas powered plants in 2023.[26] The rest of Kentucky’s electricity output came from a mix of renewable and clean energy sources including hydroelectric power plants, biomass, solar energy, and petroleum-fired generation.[27]

Overall, low energy costs in Kentucky continue to be a “catalyst” for economic growth, especially for industries whose operations rely substantially on cheap energy.[28] Thus, manufacturing, which remains Kentucky’s dominant economic sector, was the “most responsive” to changes in electricity prices.[29] In turn, ensuring stable and sustainable energy consumption is crucial as Kentucky’s economy continues to grow. In 2023, the Commonwealth, at a rate of 8.39 percent, ranked eleventh nationally in energy expenditures as a percentage of current-dollar GDP.[30] Energy is an “input for almost all economic activity;” therefore, this statistic suggests that the high rate of energy consumption is a “necessary enabler” of economic growth.[31] For a state which ranked forty-fifth in overall GDP per capita in 2023, Kentucky’s high consumption of energy relative to its overall GDP manifests the continued proliferation of its manufacturing sector.[32]

In fact, manufacturing has played a central role in Kentucky’s recent economic momentum. In 2021, manufacturers accounted for 17.39 percent of the total economic output in the state and employed close to fifteen percent of the workforce.[33] Furthermore, total output from manufacturing eclipsed $38 billion in 2021.[34] According to the Lane Report, local Kentucky economic developers expect the momentum in manufacturing to continue into 2025.[35] Furthermore, local developers expect the logistics, service, life sciences, and healthcare industries to continue to blossom in Kentucky in the coming years.[36] Evidently, Kentucky is approaching an economic renaissance of sorts.

In turn, given widespread environmental concerns with coal, a clean, generative source of energy will be vital to ensure the sustainable development of Kentucky’s economy. In 2021, coal in Kentucky accounted for 52.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.[37] Furthermore, most carbon emissions in the Commonwealth came from power plants, specifically those affiliated with the utility sector.[38] Given the disproportionate percentage of emissions generated from coal powered plants, the Commonwealth saw a spike in construction requests for solar developers.[39] Overall, state officials continue to display a propensity to turn to other sources of energy in light of current technological developments; for instance, Kentucky’s annual solar capacity increased from approximately 100 MW in 2023 to approximately 400 MW in 2024.[40] Over the next five years, Kentucky’s solar capacity is estimated to increase by approximately 4,774 MW—this estimation places Kentucky fourteenth in the country in terms of projected increase in solar capacity.[41] Moreover, Kentucky utilities including LG&E and Kentucky Utilities plan to open four natural gas plants by 2028, citing increased energy demand from new data centers and other commercial developments.[42]

II. The Role of Small Modular Reactors in Nuclear Proliferation

SMRs will play a central role in fulfilling the United States’ projected nuclear proliferation over the next several decades. A 2013 U.S. Energy Information Administration Report projected that the U.S. will increase its consumption of nuclear energy by about 68 billion kilowatt-hours by 2035.[43] According to nuclear researcher Jorge Pedraza, assuming that a 100 MW SMR operates at eighty-five percent capacity, the construction of only ninety-one SMRs could fill this gap.[44] Importantly, SMRs, unlike conventional reactors, would require less capital investment due to the lower plant cost; in addition, the modularity ensures that the amount of time spent on on-site preparation and the overall time of construction is reduced.[45] Finally, SMRs may be paired with other sources of energy, such as renewables, such that the overall efficiency of the electricity-producing system is enhanced.[46]

Overall, the lower construction costs perhaps provide the most upside when weighing the relative utility of SMRs against larger nuclear power plants. Onerous construction costs are often cited as a primary deterrent in debates over the proliferation of nuclear power, even those pertaining to the construction of SMRs.[47] For example, a research project conducted by the CATO Institute asserted that burdensome carbon taxes would have to be levied in order to ensure the cost-effectiveness of SMRs over the coming years.[48] That said, proponents of SMRs emphasize that cost efficiency would be gleaned through external factors, namely through a decreased reliance on the importation of sources of energy and through SMRs’ capacity to ensure the security of grids across the United States through dual output.[49] Furthermore, concerns about construction costs for SMRs may be displaced—SMRs would be “ready to ‘plug and play’ upon arrival,” meaning that their size and modularity would increase site flexibility and ensure lower construction costs.[50] Moreover, the modular nature provides a degree of uniformity in the assemblage of the plants such that an increased quantity in the number of plants constructed would inevitably lead to efficiency in the long term as builders may work out kinks, thus optimizing the manner and means of construction.

Myriad safety concerns, another factor that features readily in debates over nuclear power, may be assuaged by the unique features of SMRs. For starters, SMRs have a lower “source term,” or total quantity of nuclides produced in the reactor, in comparison to larger nuclear power plants.[51] In other words, Pedraza asserts that “SMRs are expected to have higher safety margins and potential lower large release frequency … which increases the ability to site SMRs closer to populated areas.”[52] Furthermore, SMRs have a lower “linear element rating” and enhanced decay heat.[53] While the reduced linear element rating provides numerous benefits, including a reduction in the amount of spent volume fuel, the enhanced decay heat “ease[s] the burden on the operating staff” and facilitates more adequate accident management.[54]

III. Virginia’s SMR Statutes

The statutory scheme recently promulgated by Virginia offers a fascinating case study into how a state once at the pinnacle of the coal industry will explore nuclear development. According to Virginia’s Department of Energy, Governor Glenn Youngkin recently announced that Virginia would build an SMR within the next decade, “making the Commonwealth the first state to adopt this innovative technology to its grid.”[55] Dominion Energy, a prominent utility company in Virginia, accepted the proposal to construct the infrastructure.[56] A statute Governor Youngkin signed into law this past summer allows Dominion to recover the construction costs of “early development” if they receive regulatory approval.[57] Specifically, the costs “would be capped at $1.40 per month for a residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity in a month.”[58] Additionally, this past fall, Amazon entered into an agreement with Dominion to pay for some of the development costs of the small modular reactor.[59] The announcement, according to a Virginia publication, evidences the multination technology company’s commitment to achieve clean energy goals.[60]

The Virginia Electric Utility Regulation Act has two provisions concerning the development of SMRs. While § 56–585.1:14 provides for the recovery of costs associated with small modular reactors, § 56–585.1:15 provides for the recovery of costs associated with small modular nuclear facilities.[61] § 56–585.1:14, which governs Phase II utilities, propounds the scheme under which utility companies such as Dominion may recover “project development costs.”[62] Specifically, Phase II utilities may recover up to eighty percent of their project development costs pursuant to an accelerated cost recovery scheme which allows the utility to recover from consumers on a “timely and current basis,” while the remaining twenty percent may be recovered through the utility's rates for generation and distribution services under section (A)(1) of § 56–585.1.[63] While the remaining twenty percent of costs incurred after July of 2024 are not eligible for the accelerated cost recovery through the rate adjustment clause of § 56-585.1, they may be recovered through the general scheme of rate setting for generation and distribution services under Title 56 of Virginia’s Code.[64] Furthermore, the “annual revenue requirement” of the rate adjustment clause shall not exceed an amount that would increase the monthly bill of an average Virginia consumer by more than $1.40.[65]

§ 56–585.1:15, on the other hand provides for a recompensation scheme by a Phase I Utility–these utilities can recover “all approved reasonable and prudent project development costs” for the development of a small nuclear reactor facility.[66] Again, such costs are to be recovered through a rate adjustment clause under § 56–585.1 “amortized over a period equal to the period during which the costs were incurred or five years, whichever is greater.”[67] Unlike § 56–585.1:14, which sets a cap both on the amount the Phase II utilities can recover through the rate adjustment clause and the amount that consumers’ bills will increase, § 56–585.1:15 simply provides that the overall project development costs recovered under the rate adjustment clause will not exceed $125 million.[68] Importantly, both bills are to expire in the next decade, so while there remains much work to be done in Virginia, the legislation will remain critical for Virginia in achieving its carbon-free goals.[69]

IV. The Current Status of Kentucky’s Nuclear Program

As explained by the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN), Kentucky has witnessed “the volatility of coal as an energy source” in the past two decades, specifically as a result of “shrinking demand, plant closures, job losses and tougher pollution controls.”[70] Therefore, Kenya Stump, executive director of Kentucky’s Office of Energy Policy, continues to advocate for nuclear energy as the missing link in Kentucky’s otherwise “‘all of the above portfolio.’”[71] Ultimately, the Office of Energy Policy and GAIN entered into a collaborative partnership that proved beneficial—after years of advocacy in Frankfort, the “working group” succeeded in garnering bipartisan legislative support for the creation of the Kentucky Nuclear Energy Development Authority (KNEDA).[72] Late in spring of 2024, the Kentucky legislature overrode Governor Beshear’s veto and passed SB 198 and formally establishing KNEDA.[73]

According to K.R.S. § 164.2802, the mission of KNEDA shall be to “serve as the nonregulatory, trusted state government agency on nuclear energy issues” and to “support and facilitate the development of … nuclear energy … in a collaborative manner.”[74] Moreover, the statute provides for the composition of the advisory board which governs KNEDA.[75] Specifically, the advisory board is to consist of twenty-two voting members and eight non-voting members.[76] The statute provides exact criteria for each of the individual members—for example, of the seven state government members who are to be voting members, one must be the secretary of the Energy and Environment Cabinet and one must be the chair of the Public Service Commission.[77] Subsection seven of K.R.S. § 164.2802 outlines the purpose of KNEDA.[78] Notable provisions of this subsection include “assist[ing] interested communities in understanding advanced nuclear opportunities, including the importance of secure, firm, cost-competitive power for customers … as well as the potential for … economic benefits,”  “develop[ing] the capacity for nuclear energy economic development in the Commonwealth … and seeking out new grants and other financial support for nuclear energy development,” and  “build[ing] the organizational capacity to engage … stakeholders interested in nuclear energy technologies that would consist of utilities, environmental advocates, electric cooperatives, and major industrial companies.”[79] Finally, K.R.S. § 164.2802 contemplates thorough collaboration with federal regulatory bodies to ensure adequate and satisfactory proliferation.[80]

Additionally, as a part of SB 198, the Kentucky legislature codified § 164.2804 and § 164.2803, which respectively provide for a framework for identifying communities that may be ready and willing to develop nuclear energy-related projects and financial assistance program for nuclear energy-related projects.[81] According to § 164.2804, the criteria to “attain the designation” as a “nuclear-ready community” includes: (a) holding local public educational meetings; (b) the availability of sites identified by the Cabinet for Economic Development as being suitable for nuclear projects; and (c) “the adoption of resolutions from the county and all cities in the county or a successful county ballot initiative declaring the community's readiness.”[82] §154.12-340, on the other hand, provides the basic foundation for how these large scale infrastructure projects will be financed.[83] According to the statute, KNEDA is to “create and implement” a financial assistance program for the location of nuclear energy projects within the state.[84] To finance the development of projects, KNEDA will enact regulations to further the purposes of this particular subsection.[85]

V. Why Kentucky Should Adopt a Statutory Scheme Like Virginia’s

In light of Kentucky’s recent “economic momentum,” the uncertainty wrought by the “volatility of coal as an energy source” necessitates decisive legislative action to promulgate a statutory scheme similar to the one Virginia recently enacted.[86] Although a principal barrier to nuclear proliferation is the prohibitive expenses associated with development, the cost-recovery scheme in the Virginia law will perpetuate positive externalities that offset the costs. As explained by Severin Borenstein, co-director of the University of California Energy Institute, in instances of utility revenue raising, economic efficiency is maximized “when price reflects full short-run social marginal cost.”[87] Besides the obvious costs of labor and construction, society’s marginal costs include negative externalities such as emissions and pollution.[88] Although the development of a small modular reactor will undoubtedly require intensive labor and capital, the reduction in negative externalities associated with Kentucky’s current energy infrastructure will reap future health and economic benefits.

Virginia’s statutory scheme for the development of SMRs has two different rate-adjustment provisions: while Phase II utilities can recover up to eighty percent of their development costs through accelerated cost recovery with an increase on consumers’ electric bill capped at $1.40/month, Phase I utilities can recover up to $125 million in development costs.[89] K.R.S. § 164.2803, on the other hand, merely authorizes KNEDA to “verify and process” eligible financial assistance requests pursuant to Kentucky’s economic development fund outlined in K.R.S. § 154.12-100.[90] The relevant language of § 164.2803 provides that KNEDA will process such requests in a manner that will “precipitate further investment in the nuclear energy ecosystem,” consider “the economic impact of the grant funding on the community and region where the proposed project will be located,” as well as “the readiness of the community where the proposed project will be located,” and the “amount of additional investment that would be made in the proposed project,” which suggests KNEDA will take the place of the secretary of the Cabinet for Economic Development under § 154.12-100.[91] Assuming the financial assistance program operated by KNEDA mirrors the secretary’s management of the economic development fund program, § 154.12-100 imposes a number of hurdles, including a report outlining “projected job creation and retention, an investment breakdown, and overall project description,” and the projects themselves are funded through the issuance of bonds with the amount of funds issued capped ultimately by the balance of the fund.[92] Contrasted with the Virginia scheme which provides for cost recovery as a matter of law, it is clear that the current financial assistance program will impose burdensome transaction costs.  

When Governor Youngkin signed the Virginia legislation in law, he expressed his intention to make Virginia “the world’s leading nuclear innovation hub.”[93] By passing similar legislation, Kentucky will be able to foster the growth of its manufacturing sector. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, SMR deployment “would result in significant growth in domestic manufacturing, tax base, and high paying factory jobs.”[94] Under the leadership of Governor Beshear, Kentucky is poised to witness more than 1,100 expansion projects and $35 billion in investments.[95] In fact, in 2022, Kentucky placed sixth in Site Selection Magazine’s annual Prosperity Cup, which tracks economic growth and the S&P Global Ratings upgraded Kentucky’s financial outlook to “positive.”[96] With Kentucky’s economic momentum set to continue, a firm commitment to the development of SMRs could cement Kentucky’s status as a leading innovator in nuclear development. In other words, similar to Governor Youngkin’s stated goal of Virginia becoming a world-leading innovator in nuclear technology, Kentucky could play a similar role in nuclear energy’s resurgence with legislation that mirrors that of Virginia’s.

A firm commitment to the development of SMRs would confer a degree of reputational capital upon Kentucky’s manufacturing sector that would continue to attract private investments, contributing to the state’s growth. Although reputational capital is an intangible measure not readily quantifiable, it “can be defined as a value consisting of trust, positive image and commitment.”[97] This “web of impressions” will not only be crucial for private investors and manufacturers looking to find a home in Kentucky for developmental projects, but also encompasses stakeholders in the communities in which SMRs would ideally be placed.[98] Ultimately, Kentucky’s cultivation of reputational capital in the nuclear sector as a world-leading innovator will be crucial for long-term success, and a firm commitment to the development of SMRs will be a necessary first step.[99]

Conclusion

Overall, considering Kentucky’s recent economic momentum, adding nuclear to the Commonwealth’s energy portfolio will be vital for continued growth.[100] Specifically, the development of small modular reactors, advanced nuclear reactors that can be sited in areas otherwise ill-suited for nuclear power plants, will provide indispensable benefits logistically, environmentally, and economically.[101] Even moderate deployment levels of SMRs would reap “significant economic impact.”[102] Consequently, the waning contribution of coal to Kentucky’s energy grid is occurring simultaneously with prolific economic growth in the manufacturing sector of the Commonwealth; therefore, energy innovation is necessary to keep pace with electricity demands. Ultimately, a statutory cost recovery provision for SMRs enacted by the General Assembly would ensure development actually occurs and enable Kentucky to continue to be a global leader in energy innovation.

* J.D Expected 2026, University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law; BA History 2022, Swarthmore College

[1] Backgrounder on the Three Mile Island Accident, U.S. Nuclear Regul. Comm’n (March 28, 2024), https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html [https://perma.cc/7XF5-JGHJ].

[2] Id.

[3] See 5 Facts to Know About Three Mile Island, Office of Nuclear Energy (May 4, 2022), https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-facts-know-about-three-mile-island [https://perma.cc/9WP4-NJ67].

[4] Rebecca Leppert & Brian Kennedy, Majority of Americans Support More Nuclear Power in the Country, Pew Rsch. Ctr. (Aug. 5, 2024), https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/08/05/majority-of-americans-support-more-nuclear-power-in-the-country/ [https://perma.cc/BAK4-V5TG].

[5] Id.

[6] Jorge Morales Pedraza, Small Modular Reactors for Electricity Generation: An Economic and Technologically Sound Alternative 13 (2017).

[7] Id. at 241–43.

[8] Craig Bettenhausen, Can Small Modular Reactors Save Nuclear Energy?, 101 Chem. & Eng’g News, no. 30, Sep. 11, 2023, at 30, 31. 

[9] Small Nuclear Power Reactors, World Nuclear Power Ass’n (June 17, 2025), https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/small-nuclear-power-reactors [https://perma.cc/ZP2F-U43P].

10 Bahman Zohuri, Small Modular Reactors as Renewable Energy Sources 195 (2018).

[11] Evan Halper, Smaller, Safer, Cheaper? Modular Nuclear Plants Could Reshape Coal Country, Wash Post (Feb. 19, 2023), https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2023/02/19/coal-nuclear-smr-modular/.

[12] Charles D. Kolstad, What is Killing the U.S. Coal Industry?, Stan. Inst. for econ. Pol’y Rsch. (Mar. 2017), https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/what-killing-us-coal-industry [https://perma.cc/ZG6U-XU3X].

[13] Kentucky Coal Facts 15 (Ky. Energy and Env’t Cabinet, Dep’t for Energy and Indep., 17th ed. 2017).

[14] J. Hansen, W. Jenson, A. Wrobel, N. Stauff, K. Biegel, T. Kim, R. Belles & F. Omitaomu, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Investigating Benefits and Challenges of Converting Retiring Coal Plants into Nuclear Plants: Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Supply Chain 1 (2022).

[15] Legislation on Small Modular Reactor Development Advances Virginia’s Shift to Clean Energy, Mcguire Woods (Apr. 25, 2024), https://www.mcguirewoods.com/client-resources/alerts/2024/4/legislation-on-small-modular-reactor-development-advances-virginias-shift-to-clean-energy/.

[16] James Bruggers, The Decline of Kentucky’s Coal Industry Has Produced Hundreds of Safety and Environmental Violations at Strip Mines, Inside Climate News (Apr. 18, 2022), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18042022/kentucky-coal-mining-violations/ [https://perma.cc/9TDX-E7TY].

[17] Aron Patrick, Ky. Energy and Env’t Cabinet, The Vulnerability of Kentucky’s Manufacturing Economy to Increasing Electricity Prices 2 (Oct. 2012).

[18] See id. at 6.

[19] Kentucky: State Profile and Energy Estimates, U.S. Energy Info. Admin. (Oct. 17, 2024), https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=KY [https://perma.cc/9ATZ-YRXL].

[20] Id.

[21] Id.

[22] Existing Industries: Manufacturing, Ky. Cabinet for Econ. Dev., https://ced.ky.gov/existing_industries/manufacturing [https://perma.cc/7W5W-36MP].

[23] U.S. Energy Info. Admin., supra note 19.

[24] Id.

[25] Id.

[26] Id.

[27] Id.

[28] Patrick, supra note 17, at 7.

[29] Id. at 9.

[30] Table E15. Total Energy Price and Expenditure Estimates (Total, Per Capita, and Per GDP), Ranked by State, 2023, U.S. Energy Info. and Admin, https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_sum/html/rank_pr.html&sid=US [https://perma.cc/9Y9N-3R69].

[31] Todd Moss & Jacob Kinser, How Does Energy Impact Economic Growth? An Overview of the Evidence, Energy for Growth Hub (March 7, 2023), https://energyforgrowth.org/article/how-does-energy-impact-economic-growth-an-overview-of-the-evidence [https://perma.cc/XG9P-TKSG].

[32] Pallavi Rao, Mapped: GDP per Capita, by U.S. State, Visual Capitalist (Oct. 23, 2024), https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-u-s-states-by-gdp-per-capita.

[33] Ky. Ctr. for Stats. (KYSTATS), Kentucky Economic Analysis PY 2022 6–7 (Sept. 2022), https://kystats.ky.gov/Content/Reports/Kentucky%20PY%202021%20Annual%20Economic%20Analysis.pdf [https://perma.cc/UL2D-UQ64].

[34] Gross Domestic Product: Manufacturing (31-33) in Kentucky, Fed. Rsrv. Bank of St. Louis (Sep. 26, 2025), https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/KYMANNGSP# [https://perma.cc/C5RZ-DX99].

[35] Mark Green, Economic Development: Kentucky’s Economic Momentum Continues in 2025, The Lane Rep. (Dec. 1, 2024), https://www.lanereport.com/177911/2024/12/economic-development-kentuckys-economic-momentum-continues-in-2025 [https://perma.cc/MGG9-43HD].

[36] Id.

[37] Total Carbon Dioxide Emissions from All Sectors, Coal for Kentucky, Fed. Rsrv. Econ. Data (Sep. 19, 2023), https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EMISSCO2TOTVTTCOKYA [https://perma.cc/FNH4-XZ47].

[38] Liam Niemeyer, How Kentucky Generates Electricity - And Emits Tons of Greenhouse Gasses, Ky. Lantern (June 14, 2023, 5:00 AM), https://kentuckylantern.com/2023/06/14/how-kentucky-generates-electricity-and-emits-tons-of-greenhouse-gasses/#:~:text=By%3A%20Liam%20Niemeyer%20%2D%20June%2014%2C%202023%205%3A00%20am&text=A%20recent%20state%20analysis%20found,of%20electricity%20in%20the%20state.

[39] Id.

[40] Kentucky State Solar Overview, Solar Energy Indus. Ass’n (2025), https://seia.org/state-solar-policy/kentucky-solar [https://perma.cc/D2RN-EQB6].

[41] Id.

[42] Kentucky Utility Plans More Natural Gas and Solar Power, Moving Away from Coal, EHN (Oct. 28, 2024), https://www.ehn.org/kentucky-utility-plans-more-natural-gas-and-solar-power-moving-away-from-coal-2669488262.html#:~:text=In%20short%3A,60%25%20by%20the%20early%202030s [https://perma.cc/GVE3-F8YZ].

[43] Pedraza, supra note 6, at 137.

[44] Id.

[45] Office of Nuclear Energy, Benefits of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), U.S. Dep’t of Energy, https://www.energy.gov/ne/benefits-small-modular-reactors-smrs [https://perma.cc/G3BS-LUYU].

[46] Id.

[47] See David Kemp & Peter Van Doren, Cost Escalation and Delays for Small Modular Reactors Suggest Caution About Nuclear Power Renaissance, Cato Inst. (Mar. 1, 2023, 12:31 PM), https://www.cato.org/blog/cost-escalation-delays-small-modular-reactors-suggest-caution-about-nuclear-power-0.

[48] Id.

[49] Zohuri, supra note 10, at 195.

[50] Pedraza, supra note 6, at viii.

[51] Id. at 244.

[52] Id.

[53] Id. at 244–45.

[54] Id.

[55] Nuclear Energy: Virginia’s Energy Safety Net, Va. Dep’t of Energy, https://www.energy.virginia.gov/renewable-energy/Nuclear.shtml#:~:text=As%20part%20of%20the%202022,innovative%20technology%20to%20its%20grid [https://perma.cc/QPG3-YLMM].

[56] Patrick Larsen, Dominion Plans to Operate Small Modular Nuclear Reactor, VPM (July 10, 2024, 5:27 PM), https://www.vpm.org/news/2024-07-10/dominion-plans-to-operate-first-small-modular-nuclear-reactor-in-u-s.

[57] Id.

[58] Id.

[59] Charlie Paullin, Amazon Announces Deal with Dominion Energy to Develop a Small Nuclear Reactor, Va. Mercury (Oct. 17, 2024, 1:34 PM), https://virginiamercury.com/2024/10/17/amazon-announces-deal-with-dominion-energy-to-develop-a-small-nuclear-reactor/.

[60] Id.

[61] Va. Code Ann. §§ 56-585.1:14–15 (2024).

[62] Va. Code Ann. § 56-585.1:14 (2024).

[63] Id. at (B).

[64] Id.

[65] Id. at (C).

[66] Va. Code Ann. § 56-585.1:15 (C).

[67] Id.

[68] Id.

[69] Legislation on Small Modular Reactor Development Advances Virginia’s Shift to Clean Energy, supra note 15.

[70] Donna Kemp Spangler, GAIN Helped Kentucky Clear the Runway for Nuclear Energy. Now the Coal-dependent State is Waiting for the Plane to Land, Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear, https://gain.inl.gov/gain-helped-kentucky-clear-the-runway-for-nuclear-energy/ [https://perma.cc/2XWS-MW9V].

[71] Id.

[72] Id.

[73] Gregory Dutton & Pierce Tomoki Stevenson, State Legislature Sparks Nuclear Energy Development in Kentucky with SB 198, Frost Brown Todd (May 16, 2024), https://frostbrowntodd.com/state-legislature-sparks-nuclear-energy-development-in-kentucky-with-sb-198/ [https://perma.cc/G3QN-UZNE].

[74] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 164.2802(1) (2024).

[75] Id. at (2).

[76] Id.

[77] § 164.2802(2)(a)(2), (4).

[78] § 164.2802(7).

[79] § 164.2802(7)(a), (c), (g).

[80] See § 164.2802(7)(f), (h).

[81] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 164.2804(1) (West 2024); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 164.2803 (2025).

[82] § 164.2804(1)(a)-(c).

[83] § 164.2803(2).

[84] Id.

[85] Id.

[86] See Green, supra note 35; Spangler, supra note 69.

[87] Severin Borenstein, The Economics of Fixed Cost Recovery by Utilities, Berkeley Lab Future Elec. Util. Regul., June 2016, at 47, 48.

[88] Id. at 47.

[89] Legislation on Small Modular Reactor Development Advances Virginia’s Shift to Clean Energy, supra note 15.

[90] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 164.2803(1).

[91] § 164.2803(2); see Va. Code Ann. § 154.12-100(3).

[92] § 154.12-100(2), (4), (7).

[93] David Dalton, Virginia Governor Signs Into Law Multiple Bills on SMR Development, NucNet (Mar. 31, 2023), https://www.nucnet.org/news/virginia-governor-signs-into-law-multiple-bills-on-smr-development-3-5-2023 [https://perma.cc/55AR-D6MA].

[94] Office of Nuclear Energy, supra note 45.

[95] Nicole Shakir, Kentucky’s Historic Economic Momentum Continues to Build Into 2025, Expansion Sol. Mag. (Feb. 20, 2025), https://www.expansionsolutionsmagazine.com/kentuckys-historic-economic-momentum-continues-2025/ [https://perma.cc/N6GS-33D6].

[96] Kentucky’s Booming Economy, Ky. Gov. Andy Beshear, https://governor.ky.gov/Priority/Pages/economy.aspx [https://perma.cc/9ASY-PRR6].

[97] Vilma Luoma-Aho, Reputation Among the Public: It Can be Measured, in Building, Measuring and Improving Public Confidence in the Nuclear Regulator 119, 120 (2004).

[98] Id. at 121.

[99] See Valentina Drofa, Trust Me If You Can: Why Reputation Capital Is a Must for Fintech Startups in This Economic Downturn, Forbes (Feb. 6, 2023, 9:45 AM), https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2023/02/06/trust-me-if-you-can-why-reputation-capital-is-a-must-for-fintech-startups-in-this-economic-downturn/ [https://perma.cc/42KU-GTAB] (arguing that reputational capital is an intangible asset that can be crucial for a company’s long term success).

[100] See Spangler, supra note 69.

[101] Joanne Liou, What are Small Modular Reactors, Int’l Atomic Energy Agency (Sept. 13, 2023), https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-are-small-modular-reactors-smrs [https://perma.cc/P48N-BX7Z].

[102] Office of Nuclear Energy, supra note 45.